Only a group of complete morons would expect to sell a lot of pro-sumer APS-c cameras at $7000 -$10,000 each. I doubt if "Sigma" was that confused then, or now. Sales probably match expectations, at least among people who know the business.

Now, one person might be a bit confused, or maybe embarrassed, but then his justification was that he was not selling cameras at a loss, either. Of course, until he sells the required number of cameras the project might be a loser...

Meanwhile, the sensor itself is developed, and they have tried to get SPP to work properly.

Sigma took on the Foveon sensor to separate itself from the market as a whole, and it succeeded. If we want to speculate on how that came about, that's fair enough, but it seems extreme to attribute emotional states to entire corporate entities.

Do I know these things? Only in the most general sense.

I do believe that the Foveon sensor needs some work to function properly at high ISO's. and as I see it, when the light is greatly reduced the results are going to be about the same as the Bayer sensors. (How could it be otherwise?) So the Foveon effect (if there is such a thing) is going to require sufficient light.

I do not think that the Foveon look requires 16MP x3. Probably 10x3 would be plenty. And it would probably provide a cleaner image.

Roland Karlsson
wrote:

richard stone
wrote:

Really Roland, how is it you have come to know everything?

What kind of question is that?

You have to be nice now. No photo stuff from Santa otherwise.

Of course I dont know what Sigma people thinks. I just wrote that they probably are confused and worried now after the massive critique they have got. Maybe they are not - but wouldnt that be strange?

I do not think that the Foveon look requires 16MP x3. Probably 10x3 would be plenty. And it would probably provide a cleaner image.

This can be discussed at length. But ... it all boils down to what you want.

I cant imagine that the 5 um pixels on SD1 are too small. A 10 MP APS-C sensor will have 6 um pixels, i.e. 20% more area. I dont think thats essential. I dont think a 10 MP sensor will have better noise behaviour.

Whats essential though (IMHO) is the match to lens resolutions. The SD1 seems to have so high resolution that most Sigma lenses just cant generate the Foveon look, i.e. aliasing. Maybe a 8 or 10 MP sensor is better if you want aliasing. Or maybe its even better with 5 MP (SD15) or 3 MP (SD10). If you want aliased pixels that is.

Personally I believe in lots of pixels and lack of aliasing. So - I would rather increase the number of pixels. And then get some very nice lenses. A sensor that outresolves the lens and a lens that has nice and even unsharpness sounds optimal.

I cant imagine that the 5 um pixels on SD1 are too small. A 10 MP APS-C sensor will have 6 um pixels, i.e. 20% more area.

Roland,

I guess You were a tad too fast...

...because a 5 µm pixel has a area of 5x5 = 25 µm² and
a 6 µm pixel has a area of 6x6 = 36 µm²,
which is 44% more area and therefore significant.

-- hide signature --

No one else is guilty for one's incapabilities except one self.

Envy is the highest form of recognition.

Stop to run, start to think.
Think twice - that doubles the fun!

Your world is as big, as Your mind.
Avoid to have only one point of view!

Uli

Don't forget that 5 µm is not even pixel size, but pixel pitch only. After space for wiring, it is probably more like 4 µm vs 5 µm. So the difference should be even bigger. >
50% I would guess.
--
Maple

But - no matter - I still dont thing 15 MP will be noisier than 10 MP per area sensor. It might be, but I would be surprised. I still think the greatest difference is that the 10 MP might get aliasing over the entire sensor if you use a good lens, something that is difficult with 15 MP. And ... that talks in favour for 25 MP IMHO Aliasing might look good at pixel level, but hardly is an advantage for printing.

Don't forget that 5 µm is not even pixel size, but pixel pitch only. After space for wiring, it is probably more like 4 µm vs 5 µm. So the difference should be even bigger. >
50% I would guess.

This is fixed with micro lenses.

And dont forget that 15 MP is 50% more pixels than 10 MP. So - more noise per pixel is going to be averaged out. So - the noise per area sensor is not going to increase - not much at least. Unless .... 5 um is the point where the Foveon sensor breaks down and noise starts to dominate. It is when you reach this point you shall not make more pixels. And --- as I have said before - for Bayer CFA this point is 1-2 um for ordinary sensors and 0.5 um for back lit sensors.

so quite a long time before they will announce a new camera and you will not have it in your hands before mid 2013. Else would be a micracle.

The hint on the Sigma US site shows a lens with OS, so they will announce a lens with OS a January 10th.

Sounds about right. Sigma times their announcements to photo fairs. And then it takes some substantial time from announcement until its in stores. So ... mid 2013 there might be something, or mid 2014. Hmmmm ... but some DP cameras have just popped up. But ... that have been improvements only. So, no ... I would not hold my breath waiting for the next Sigma camera. Better plan for something else, if you want/need any camera in 2012.

Its the SA mount problem of course. I cant put my Pentax lenses on that mount without destroying the lenses for K mount usage.

Maybe M42 lenses? I have some. And there are good ones out there.

So ... we will see.

But if Sigma released a decent mirror less camera with a 10 or 15 MP sensor I would certainly be interested ... at least when there is a Pentax K adapter. Best would be with a Sony or Samsung mount. Then there are adapters.

I honestly have not the least knowledge how much or little 50% larger pixel translates into better S/N and DR characteristics. That's why I did not delve farther into that than stating 50% instead of 20%.

I honestly have not the least knowledge how much or little 50% larger pixel translates into better S/N and DR characteristics. That's why I did not delve farther into that than stating 50% instead of 20%.

OK - and I only know what I have read.

The 20% was a typo. The fingers writing a combination of two thoughts.